Harbel Singh vs Arya Samaj and Others

Nisha Gupta, J.—This second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 3.1.2012 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Bundi in Civil First Appeal No. 66/2011 whereby the appellate court has affirmed the decree of the trial court dated 30.1.2003 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Bundi in Civil Suit No. 371/92 by which suit for eviction and arrears of rent has been decreed against the present appellant.

The short facts of the case are that respondents filed a suit for eviction against the appellant on the ground of title of denial. Plaintiff has claimed that he is owner of the property and he has rented the premises to the appellant. Appellant has stated in his written statement that property belongs to Municipal Board and he has constructed the shop. The court below has decreed the suit and appeal has been dismissed, hence this appeal.

The contention of the appellant is that courts below has only relied upon document Ex. 3 in absence of fact that never the rent has been paid to respondent, Ex. 4 alleged account of construction does not bear his signatures, no notice for payment of rent has been served upon him, he is not the tenant and court below has not considered the facts in right perspective.

Per contra, the contention of the respondents is that there is no perversity in the impugned order. Ex. 3 rent note has been placed on record which speaks that property has been rented to the appellant and there is no iota of evidence that property belongs to Municipal Council and enquiry as regards to title is foreign in the suit for eviction.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments and decree under appeal as well as original record of the case.

Looking to the concurrent findings of fact, as regards the factum that premises has been rented to the appellant, no interference is needed. No perversity has been shown by the counsel for the appellant so as to interfere by this Court in second appeal.

The counsel for the appellants has relied upon Hero Vinoth (minor) Vs. Seshammal, and Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Sohan Lal (Dead) By Lrs., and Vijay Kumar Talwar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, where scope of Section 100 CPC has been explained. Here in the present case, nothing has been shown that the Court has ignored any material evidence or has drawn such wrong inference which vitiates the whole findings or burden of proof has been casted wrongly. Both the courts below are concurrent on the finding that the present appellant is tenant in the premises. The appellant has not proved the fact that he has taken the premises from municipal council, documentary as well as oral evidence has been considered, some minor inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses has been pointed out which is natural when the witnesses are examined after lapse of many years and respondent has relied on Navaneethammal Vs. Arjuna Chetty, wherein it has been held that appreciation of evidence by the High Court just to replace the findings of the court below is not proper. It is possible that another view may be made by reappreciation of evidence but to reach a different conclusion, the High Court should not appreciate the evidence. Here in the present case, seeing from any angle there seems to be no perversity in the concurrent findings of fact of both the courts below. The counsel for the appellant could not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law.

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed, and the same is accordingly dismissed.